On Sun, June 28, 2009 10:08, Jason Haar wrote: > On 06/28/2009 12:18 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote: >> spammers need to rewrite webbrowsers also :=) >> will you click on a url that is not click bare ? > Are you saying that this kind of spam doesn't work, as it requires the > user to actually edit the link to make it work?
yes > I think that's irrelevant. The job of an antispam system IMHO is to keep > spam out of people's INBOXes - irrespective of whether or not it's spam > that makes sense. yes, this is also true, but it also irrelevant to scan for urls that are not urls, on better way to check for fuzzy domains is to make a meta that consists of wwww and tlds where all in between is random, that way we dont block any, and wee hit on spam domains that is fuzzy and if end users train bayes this still counts > Will users be ringing the helpdesk asking if the antispam system is > broken when all this "www space something dot" ends up in their INBOX? > Answer: you bet they do. in my webmail there is a "SPAM" and "NOT SPAM" link, so i dont have this problem -- xpoint
